The original idea of patents was to promote innovation through sharing ideas. I agree that the current system doesn't live up to that, but I'm not sure that doi

The original idea of patents was to promote innovation through sharing ideas. I agree that the current system doesn't live up to that, but I'm not sure that doing away with patents is the solution. Patents are often like art. You can see a painting and think, "I could do that!" You can look at a patent and think, "I could code that." But you didn't code it before you saw the patent, so you don't really know for sure. Hindsight is 20/20. Patents are a reward for both the inventor and society. If we reduce the reward for innovation, we reduce innovation. Especially very expensive innovation that may yield products that are easy to copy. I suppose my big concern is that for the individual inventor, there really isn't any protection at all besides patents. An individual isn't big enough to mass produce products or protect them or market them more than the big corps, but the individual can sell the patent or get investors to help him/her fight infringement. Yes, the megacorps get most of the benefit now, but that is largely because most inventors work for the megacorps. But a patent only costs a few hundred dollars and is well within reach of individuals who are willing to do the research and put the effort into building a patent to protect an idea. Patents are the only protection left for joe or jane inventor. No megacorp is going to pay for your idea or your invention if they can just build it themselves. As for free markets, I don't believe in free markets, or at least, I don't believe the market is free -- or ever will be free. It's not free because special interests want to protect their access to the market. I think the market should be regulated, especially when the public has to bail out systems that collapse due to a lack of regulation. But I digress... Design patents cover end results. If I patent a design, you can't use the same design -- even with a different process to get there. There is a reasonable way to find out if something is patented, the USPTO has a patent search. It could be better, but no one ever says, "Hey, I should build this, let me search the USPTO first!" They just start coding or building. It may be too easy to get a patent and the USPTO may not have the experience to evaluate nonobviousness -- unfortunately, Einstein doesn't work there anymore. Perhaps the govt should pay more for people who have the experience to adequately evaluate claims and charge more to get the patent approved.